|
I'm in a small IT department too, that was the CTO and Senior Developer pulling rank on my design decision. :S
(I'm leaving in a week anyway  )
T
-------------------------------
Carrier Bags - 21st Century Tumbleweed.
|
|
|
|
|
I just spent the day (working from home) writing a wrapper for NumericUpDown that is generic and will take any of the built-in numerics, hide the actual decimal, and handle the casting so I don't have to.
Ugly as Hillary, but it works.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it was just the code.
Strong typing is a good way to control up front what type of information you are looking for rather than waiting for it to hit the database or a flat file and finding out later it isnt what it should be.
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that.'" - Tommy (Tommy Boy)
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School)
|
|
|
|
|
|
While converting an existing internal application from vb6 to c# i came accross the following :
'Reusable code -- Cut from here --
do some work here
'Reusable code -- Cut to here --
So you can guess what happens when you change something in that code block 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/banshee32
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm... no? I'm guessing either nothing or something catastrophic.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: something catastrophic
Yes if you don't copy&paste modifications of that so called "reusable" code to all places where it was "reused".
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus
"Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
|
|
|
|
|
Ah! A Visual Studio Code snippet!
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, now that makes sense... kinda.
|
|
|
|
|
Some of those "snippets" were indeed pasted all over the place ... Imagine my surprise when the original author could not understand why his updates didnt work like it should
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe he should use the "C preprocessor" with his BASIC code.
|
|
|
|
|
Very nice resusable code
Regards,
Sylvester G
sylvester_g_m@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
If txtProvCt.Text = txtProvCtS Then
Else
giUpdate = True
End If
|
|
|
|
|
and not unusual...
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: and not unusual...
Queue the Tom Jones soundtrack.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
Lol, i used to do that when i first was teaching myself, then i discovered if not.
Posted by The ANZAC
|
|
|
|
|
Ah a VB users snippet, lack of understanding promotes bad coding.
.net is a box of never ending treasures, every day I get find another gem.
|
|
|
|
|
It's one of my coding rules, which is really useful once you get the point :
if(NULL != l_poStrTest)
{
l_poStrTest->Format
( "My code : %d"
, l_nErrorCode
);
}
else
{
}
It's also all about defines :
#define MY_TEST
#ifndef MY_TEST
int l_nSize = GetStringSize(l_poStrText);
#else // MY_TEST
#endif // MY_TEST
By doing so, I write the full structure of the code which is then ready to fill up, and it also helps to keep an eye-track of the execution logic (inequal statement first) so that you don't have to know if the test is about inequality (!= or #ifndef) or equality (== or #ifdef). You just have to spot the upper or lower block of code and see if it is defined/filled or not...
This also force to structure carefully your code and put some air between the lines, instead to write a rock-compact block of code...
Kochise
PS : I often write empty equality code like this
if(NULL != l_poStrTest)
{
l_poStrTest->Format
( "My code : %d"
, l_nErrorCode
);
}
else{}
In Code we trust !
|
|
|
|
|
= is more faster than !=..thats why
Regards,
Sylvester G
sylvester_g_m@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
I was never one for the intricacies of the C preprocessor. On my latest project, apparently (or rather, unfortunately) someone is.
An .h file has a bunch of definitions (real variable names changed to protect the innocent):
statedefs.h:
<br />
makeState(State1, 0x01)<br />
makeState(State2, 0x02)<br />
makeState(State3, 0x03)<br />
Odd, I think, but ok. Then I go look up "makeState". What the... 3 entries? That's not a good sign.
Instance 1:
<br />
#define makeState(NAME, NUM) ST_##NAME## = ##NUM##,<br />
typedef enum {<br />
#include "statedefs.h"<br />
ST_LAST } statetype;<br />
Instance 2:
Embedded in the middle of a function(!)
<br />
#undef makestate<br />
#define makeState(NAME, NUM) somevariable++;<br />
#include "statedefs.h"<br />
Instance 3:
<br />
#define makestate(NAME, NUM) { "ST_"#NAME,0,0},<br />
sometype stateinfo[] =<br />
{<br />
#include "statedefs.h"<br />
}<br />
There are no external programs being used, no weird autogeneration stuff.. the entire set of code is a replacement for:
<br />
enum<br />
{<br />
ST_State1 = 1,<br />
ST_State2 = 2,<br />
ST_State3 = 3,<br />
<br />
ST_LAST<br />
}<br />
Most editors I've tried cannot tag it, due to the preprocessor concatenation used ("##" in instance 1). References don't work either. And this is one of the easier to read examples of preprocessor abuse...
I just try and remind myself that code written this way makes it that much easier on my next job interview!
|
|
|
|
|
#define makeState(NAME, NUM) ST_##NAME## = ##NUM##, 
To add insult to, well, insult - he only needed the first ##. Maybe he thought the macro params needed to be "quoted" with ## ?
|
|
|
|
|
That's somebody trying to be clever just to show off. I'm a great believer in the KISS principle, and this person deserves to be severely slapped with a wet haddock.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O`Hanlon wrote: KISS
Yeah I wish people would remember that...dangit!
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that.'" - Tommy (Tommy Boy)
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School)
|
|
|
|
|
KISS -
1) Lots of small, primitive working components that perform a specific task and clip together?
2) Few large complex classes?
Which one?
[Edit: Typo - Simple = Complex in 2nd option]
-------------------------------
Carrier Bags - 21st Century Tumbleweed.
|
|
|
|
|
You got something here! At a certain point, complexity can be moved around between "participants", but it remains in the project.
"clipping components together" can increase complexity by one (thinking on a logarithmic scale)
If your target is, however, still two or three orders of complexity away, you are in trouble. I think the idea is to plug together the next layer's "small, primitive classes" from the layer below. However, plugging components may give you the robustness of an application, but components have much higher requirements to be pluggable. At each layer, you spend more and more glue code to fit things together.
It helps to start with a "more skilled", higher level language (i.e. start at higher complexity already, so the gap gets smaller), or apply KISS to the project goals (but that's not always possible).
Hmmm... no solution, nope.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
